eda_pcb_drc_start_real_time_drc

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides meaningful information: the return value is a boolean indicating success, and the API is idempotent (returns true even if real-time DRC is already enabled). It also notes the version availability (since EDA v4.2). It does not cover error conditions or side effects, but for a simple enabling action, this is reasonably transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured, with the core purpose front-loaded in Chinese and English, followed by a crucial behavioral note (idempotency), version information, and return value documentation. Every line adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Considering the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essentials: what it does, return value, idempotent behavior, and version. However, it lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., active PCB document), potential errors, and how it relates to companion tools like stop_real_time_drc or check. Since there is no output schema np and no annotations, a bit more context would help agents use it correctly in sequence.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both 'args' and 'windowId' have descriptive text in the schema. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline for high coverage is 3, and the schema adequately documents the parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb '开始' (start) and resource '实时 DRC 检查' (real-time DRC check), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It is further reinforced by the method signature and return type. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related sibling tools like eda_pcb_drc_check or eda_pcb_drc_stop_real_time_drc, relying on the name to distinguish.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as eda_pcb_drc_check (one-time check) or eda_pcb_drc_stop_real_time_drc (stop). It does mention idempotency (already enabled returns true), which indirectly hints at behavior, but there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' instruction, nor prerequisites like having a PCB document open.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.